Republican bill would halt 'unauthorized' U.S. strikes in Libya

reply to post by dizzie56

If that's the case then the USA needs to be invaded and stopped immediately as they themselves fall into the terrorist category.
As for defending human rights it's kind of funny how they didn't invade Mozambique or Zimbabwe or the Congo etc.
Why don't they invade Mexico, how many Americans die everyday and how is Mexico not directly affecting American interests??
Tell me the difference between Mexico and Libya?
How many Americans died in Libya prior to March and how many Americans killed in Mexico and in the USA (including law officers) prior to March??
So it's ok to kill people in another country for the sake of their citizens and future of that country but it does not apply to American neighbors or American soil.
How very interesting.

I would like to point something out to people which they probably have paid little to no attention to. Both of these Congressmen are from the Midwest, Illinois and Michigan, the Midwest in American political history has been known for their more isolationist and non-interventionist tendencies compared to their coastal and Southern colleagues.

Take for instance the former Conservative Coalition of Southern Democrats and Conservative Republicans (found mainly in the Midwest, i.e. Robert A. Taft). They agreed on the free-markets and limited government economics, avoided social issues, but were divided on foreign policy issues. The Southern Democrats were military hawks that supported war and urged Roosevelt to enter World War 2 at its beginning, the Conservative Republicans however were non-interventionists and founded the America First Committee committed to keeping the United States out of World War 2 and eventually these Republicans would go on to oppose entrance to the UN and NATO, confronting the Soviet Union, and were neutral on Israel.

The Southern Democrats of the coalition however were staunchly in favor of joining NATO, supported a confrontational foreign policy with the Soviet Union, and staunchly supported the state of Israel. This same regional division can be seen today as exposed right here in this thread, two Midwestern Republicans proposing legislation to stop the war in Libya until it is properly declared, the Southern Democrats… I mean Republicans… are the ones who control the GOP now and are the ones who want this war.

I say two very big for these courageous true Republicans, it is about time someone stands up to the Southern lunatics of the party.

reply to post by laslidealist


It would seem Americans have given up on their own ideals and freedoms and have resigned themselves to simply taking some illusionary consolation when our Government spends millions and billions and trillions on other nations mostly on the weapons and munitions needed to carry out the violent process of making them a better place?

No need to deal with the challenges at home. No need to make America a better place, just believe and say it's perfect, and we are doing the right thing and hopefully they won't send you to a Secret Prison.

Yeah!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Yes it is very sad, it seems as most Americans are just to arrogant with the ego the size of the universe to ever admit something is wrong with the USA and that the USA could never do anything wrong or hurt someone on purpose and that all they are doing is what's best for everyone.
Since when does any government ever, ever, ever, have anyone else best interest in mind other than their self serving purpose?
No wonder why it's been sooooo easy for TBTB to control everything when the majority are mindless insects happy to feed on feces.
The sad part is that i still would sacrifice my life for these insects if i could actually make a positive change but in the end it would all be for nothing as they would just go right back to slaving for the master.
It is people like you and the like that give me hope and perhaps the end is not written just yet.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You would think that with the US debt ceiling situation they might try something else other than pumping more hype and resources into the military complex. Of course that didn't stop the military complex during WW1 and 2. The cost of those wars went way above the realized benefits. Is military action really the only way the world can get out of recession? Granted munitions and bombs don't seem like a constructive solution to anything, yet somehow these wars bring nations together get everyone marching to the same band and stimulate the world economy.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Oh the old I fell victim to the word games and didn't notice US Military jets dropping American munitions on a foreign soveriegn land in a destructive violent act that is WAR.

And who cares if the constitution is still being trashed today, since it's been trashed for decades now by similiarly out of control politicians.

Brilliant argument there Hunka, simply brilliant!

edit on 30/3/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

I guess the repubs would rather require a run up of lies to hoodwink the american people to go into an actual protracted war.

That's more to their liking

Take all the cheap shots you want your "guy" jumped us into a middle eastern war we had no business being a part of...Sunlight sux huh..
(U. n. out of our country now!and U.s out of the u.n!.)
John Stewart had nice word play piece some belt way bandit was quoted as actually calling this intervention a "turd sandwhich" to which John disagreed calling it A:

" Carbohydrate delimited feces containment system.".

The Congress gave presidents the right to do just about anything militarily by passing treaty laws regarding both NATO and the UN.

In addition to that, the constitution is clear that it gives the president the power and control over the military, which supersedes the war declaration act.

I just hope the average Mohammed in Libya gets something good out of all this in the end, and it's not just another war of pawns by opposing powers. I'm yet undetermined about what's really happening in Libya though Gaddafi should be gone.

Can't we leave Iraq yet??

reply to post by laslidealist


Is it arrogance, ignorance or fear? Or a combination of all the above.

History sets such clear examples and it amazes me how they are so disdainfully ignored.

Deep down I want to believe all people mean well and care, but there really is a challenge not all want to have to live up do when it comes to doing well and displaying it.

America was born from the grass roots up, and it is going to have to be reborn in that same fashion. People getting involved, people caring, people insisting on different and better things, and not taking the excuses of a dishonest government bent on militarism and war.

This is probably the greatest crisis to ever confront America, the apathy and abdication from within.

I can't imagine how anyone imagines this is corrected through the polls at this point. The government is so corrupted and bogged down in layer after layer and department after department of entrenched doctrine with big money corporate interests preying off of and directing it's every move and motive, that it seems absurd it could ever be relied on or even want to correct itself at this point, and would not simply assimilate and corrupt all who try.

We not only fail to learn from history, we fail to learn from the contemporaries in foreign lands where the people are realizing and mobilizing and at least attempting to make some difference.

Funny how some would like to help them, but not help ourselves.

Typical Republican BS.
Where were these aholes when bush was around?
How come they weren't trying to stop him back then huh?

Originally posted by pirhanna
The Congress gave presidents the right to do just about anything militarily by passing treaty laws regarding both NATO and the UN.

In addition to that, the constitution is clear that it gives the president the power and control over the military, which supersedes the war declaration act.

I just hope the average Mohammed in Libya gets something good out of all this in the end, and it's not just another war of pawns by opposing powers. I'm yet undetermined about what's really happening in Libya though Gaddafi should be gone.

Can't we leave Iraq yet??

Here is the problem the average Mohammed in Libya we don't even know what their ultimate intentions and ambitions are.

The Mujahadeen of Afghanistan we enlisted to fight the Soviets became the Taliban we are still fighting ourselves after 10 years.

But you are wrong the Treaties can not supercede the Constitution from a Court perspective which technincally remains as a check and balance, and no the President is not within his Powers in the War Power Act either, and WE really do have an obligation as citizens to stop permitting the abuses of the Government, our soldiers, our treasury and the people of the world.

Originally posted by pirhanna
The Congress gave presidents the right to do just about anything militarily by passing treaty laws regarding both NATO and the UN.

In addition to that, the constitution is clear that it gives the president the power and control over the military, which supersedes the war declaration act.

I just hope the average Mohammed in Libya gets something good out of all this in the end, and it's not just another war of pawns by opposing powers. I'm yet undetermined about what's really happening in Libya though Gaddafi should be gone.

Can't we leave Iraq yet??

screw congress delegating their authority; what doesthe CONSTITUTION say?
BELIEVE IT OR NOT FROM LEFTHANDED HUFFPOST:

Michael Ratner

President, Center for Constitutional Rights

Like
To Hell with the Constitution: Obama Goes To War
Posted: 03/30/11 12:22 PM ET




How is it that Congress isn't screaming at President Obama for usurping its power to take this nation to war against Libya? (Even Bushes #41 and #43 had their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq authorized.) And if Congress isn't screaming, then why aren't we? We should be. The power to make war impacts us all: it kills, it costs our dwindling treasury, and it has serious consequences.

Those are just some of the reasons why the Constitution doesn't allow the president to make the decision to go to war unilaterally -- a fact that Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor, knows full well. If fact, when candidate Obama was asked if the president could bomb Iran without authority from Congress, he categorically responded: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Candidate Obama's letter perfect response reveals precisely how well he understands the framers' fear of giving the power to initiate war to the president. As James Madison, principal author of the Constitution wrote, "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." Consequently, Article 1, section 8, cl. 11 states that Congress and only Congress can authorize the use of military force against another country. It makes no difference whether it's called war or a "military action" -- Obama's term for the attack on Libya.

more @







www.huffingtonpost.com...

Silly peons. It's not a war. It's a business transaction. You won't complain when the oil prices go down

Originally posted by grey580
Typical Republican BS.
Where were these aholes when bush was around?
How come they weren't trying to stop him back then huh?

Where are people who realize we are living today in the here and now and better confront these challenges presently, since they can't be confronted past tense.

Gripes and excuses in the face of Government at perpetual war and stipping the people of civil liberties while bankrupting their treasury and exporting their jobs is probably not the solution someone with an eye to having good government that serves the people and is controlled by the people would imagine is the path to that.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Told us on Wednesday but did when...?

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

Well wow, so we have been funding and covertly supplying and helping the Libyan "Rebels" from the git go.

I wonder though how Americans would feel if Americans looking to restore the Government took covert cash and weapons and logistical support from Iran, Afghanistan or China?

We would be considered domestic terrorists, but in Libya if you take foreign aide and money to over throw as much of the government, set up your own oil company, and central bank it's all cool!

Well it least in our government's eyes, the people paying and prodding them to do that.

And someone mentioning on ATS constantly humanity is awakening or American awakening is speeding up ...bla bla .... 75 people in New York and 80 in Mineapolis protested against this illegal war with Libya .. 155 only



It's so simple ....Gaddafi or Libya not attacked US or any American !!!
US are bombing and attacking Libya and Gaddafi.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Haha I told you so, CIA funded and started the whole rebellion. Then again people who have been following along didn't need me to point that crap out. Disgusting...

What happened to diplomacy that Obama always talked about?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Haha I told you so, CIA funded and started the whole rebellion. Then again people who have been following along didn't need me to point that crap out. Disgusting...

I did a thread weeks ago outlining the use of specialized Chat Room and Message Board Software created for the Department of Defense by HB Gary being used to create sock puppet fake personas on the internet to encourage and recruit people in these nations to rebel, and Covert operations on the ground by the CIA to fund them and aide them.

While yes the governments in these nations are not ideal, hardly any more so than ours, we are basically instigating revolution in targeted countries and then exploiting the pretext to militarily intervene to create new regimes.

It's actually killing people over there and creating tremendous hardships, not making their lives better, and it's very doubtful they would be doing it if it weren't for our instigation and monetary, and material covert support.

All done once again without declaring it openly to the American people and giving the Congress any opportunity to vote in favor for or against it.

www.barackobama.com...

Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.

Originally posted by deltaboy
What happened to diplomacy that Obama always talked about?

I imagine he carries on a lot of diplomacy with the oil men, bankers and generals and spies that want to and are making all this happen.

I mean who needs to talk to foreign leaders when you can just focus on making the people who are going to give you hundreds of millions of dollars to help you get reelected happy?